Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Kant wrote: I myself am a researcher by inclination.
I feel the entire thirst for cognition and the eager restlessness to proceed further in it,
as well as the satisfaction at every acquisition.
There was a time when I believed this alone could constitute the honour of humankind,
and I despised the rabble who knows nothing.

Rousseau has set me right.
This blinding prejudice vanishes, I learn to honour human beings,
and I would feel by far less useful than the common labourer
if I did not believe that this consideration could impart a value
to all others in order to establish the rights of humanity.

Social freedoms are what you may do without meeting retaliation / resistance / restrictions from authority / society at large.
Furthermore, society may support you in your endeavours as your freedoms are aligned with social good.

If you are only allowed to act in a way that supports or is neutral to society (excluding self treatment),
then all your lawful actions will thereby produce benefit to society, regardless of the direction you move.
Your presence will not be a threat, and society can leave you to your own devices - (if you obey the law).

==

Morality: a system of moral principles
Moral: Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character || adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct

Chat GPT - Morality wrote:Morality is a system of principles and values that helps people determine what is right and wrong, good and bad behavior.
It guides how individuals treat each other, themselves, and the world around them.

&

Wikipedia - The Social Contract (1762) wrote: Rousseau argues that legitimate authority must be compatible with individual freedom.
Such authority can only be compatible with individual freedom if it is consented to, and hence there must be a social contract. [...]
For Rousseau, since one's right to freedom is inalienable, the people cannot obligate themselves to obey someone other than themselves.
Transferring rights to an authority involved renunciation of freedom and transformed the natural equality of men into subjection.
Hence, the only legitimate social contract is one that establishes the people themselves as the rulers.
Rousseau refers to the united will of the people as the general will.
The general will, to be truly general, must only legislate laws with general form, i.e., laws that apply equally to all.

Chat GPT - The Social Contract (1762) wrote: Rousseau argues that legitimate political authority comes only from a social contract agreed upon by all citizens for their mutual preservation.
In this contract, individuals give up some personal freedoms to the "general will"—the collective will of the people aimed at the common good.

From this we can see that morality is about differentiating between good / bad, right / wrong -
and the Social Contract (SC), proposed in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (over 250 years ago), proposes the general will of the people as a legitimate authority to legislate law - a general will aligned with that which is in the 'common good' of all who adopt this system of morality.

Morality and SC law are closely intertwined, and the same principles used to determine SC law could be used to determine a type of morality.
As SC law is a legal extension of the ethical framework 'good = the general population's common good' -
rules, that when generalized and followed, result in the common good / benefit of the entire population.

Thus, Rousseau's argument not only sets a template for law, but also for morality.
His yardstick being the common good of the population.

And how do we evaluate what is in the common good of people?

By understanding people. You can look within to do this, and you can use science:

Chat GPT - The Moral Landscape (2010) by Sam Harris [summary] wrote: Sam Harris argues that morality can and should be grounded in science, particularly in terms of human well-being.
He challenges the idea that science has nothing to say about values, claiming instead that moral truths exist and are discoverable through scientific inquiry.

Key Points:

1. Moral Realism Based on Well-Being

There are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just like there are right and wrong answers in science.
The "moral landscape" is a metaphor: different peaks and valleys represent varying levels of human flourishing or suffering.

2. Science Can Inform Morality

Science, especially neuroscience and psychology, can help us understand what actions, policies, or social systems promote well-being.
Cultural differences don't mean all moral views are equally valid—some simply produce more harm than good.

3. Rejecting Moral Relativism

Harris critiques moral relativism, the idea that morality is entirely subjective or culturally dependent.
He argues that some cultural practices are objectively harmful, and science can help us determine that.

4. Consciousness Matters

The foundation of morality is based on conscious experience—what it's like to suffer or thrive.
If consciousness is the basis of moral concern, then anything that can experience suffering or well-being deserves moral consideration.

Bottom Line:

Morality isn’t just opinion or tradition—it can be studied and understood through science, with human well-being as the guiding principle.

Here Harris argues that the well-being of sentient life, is a valid filter/metric by which to discern good from bad.
That many practices are objectively harmful to a life's capacity to sustain itself, thus, detrimental to it's capacity to experience well-being.

-

Science reveals information about our biology/physiology/psychology,
giving us insights into our origin / structure, and the origins of our survival needs & preferences -
enabling us to recognize why we value, patterns between our values & the results of attaining our values.

However, science cannot tell us that we ought to value anything.
To ask a moral question, implies there are good and bad things -
as why ask a question, if you know the answer is always the same?

'Is X good? Existence is amoral. Objectively, X is neutral - it simply is.'
'Is Y good? [...]'
'Is Z good? [...]'

Once we declare an objective/goal we are seeking,
then science can tell us statistically what leads to said objective/goal.
[I think this is a gap Harris' argument - I'll circle back to this*]

Furthermore, science can reveal that people are born with preferences/values/goals/objectives,
and that there is commonality between the preferences people are born with - they aren't random.
And if we want to create an environment that align with these common ground preferences,
science can tell us environments better or worse suited to meet that end.

I agree with Hume's is-ought problem.
One can say, 'Well-being is in the interest of people' -
but ought people act towards their interests?
People can actively undermine their own interests.
From the perspective of objectivity / neutrality,
any outcome is perfectly acceptable, and there is no 'ought'.

Existence is not inherently just to the welfare of the sentient.
Some people prefer an environment that has justice,
thus they may seek to build a framework for justice,
and try to influence others to act in accord with this framework.

Morality, social norms, justice:

They are constructs that we project onto the world.
Constructed rules, which we may abide by, that existence wont.
Existence is not moral. Existence doesn't care about justice. Existence is indifferent to our norms.

But that existence as a whole is indifferent,
does not mean we must mirror it's indifference.
The neutrality of existence, is actually one less road block to meeting our ends.
Existence doesn't care if we use/utilize it for whatever arbitrary reason, and will not resist such.
The sun isn't going to argue with however we apply it's energy.


---

*To fill the gap:

Objective Orientated Values / Goal Orientated Values [GOV]

Set a goal, or reveal that we already have a goal.

If the is-ought gap has already been crossed,
by virtue of one's physical structure,
then we do no need to argue why one ought to cross that gap -
we simply have to reveal that gap has already been crossed.

Once we can demonstrate that a person has preferences,
then science can tell that preferring being some oughts in relation to meeting those preferences.
Not that one ought meet their preferences, but if they seek to do so, better or worse ways.

The primary question then becomes not, 'Goal or no goal'?
But: 'Which goal?'

Ben JS - ILP wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/under ... l/49137/12
-

If there is a goal / objective, then actions can be compared relative to their capacity to ideally realize this outcome.
If the ‘is’ in is/ought, references a goal, then the oughts logically unfold.

We are born with preferences - born with instinctual goals.
But often our instincts conflict upon one another.
They cannot each be followed indiscriminately without undermining each other.

Therefore people, due to many influences, set goals themselves in a hierarchy.
A problem emerges when others disagree with that hierarchy.
The case is to be made why one hierarchical set of goals, is wiser, than another set.

There’s a case which I agree with and would gladly attempt to make.
There is an underlying pattern/theme/direction to the evolution of our instincts.
Given natural selection - our instincts are a set of drives that enabled us to survive in this environment.
If we align ourselves with survival using reason and rationality,
many of our drives / instincts will be satisfied.

However, we must ensure quality of life - not simply prolonged existence.
[...]

In this scenario, health can be defined as one’s alignment with survival / sustainability.
That one is well adapted to survival, and has the capacity to resist against the threats to this end.
Happiness itself, is a tool which enables us to fight against risks to our survival -
as look to those who commit suicide… they were not happy. ( an extreme example )

Let’s say we only have one life - after this life, eternal oblivion.
Let’s say someone’s ‘sick’, relative to the above definition of health.
If we have yet to develop the capacity to ‘heal’ them,
why ought they listen to our values?
Why shouldn’t they run with their own ‘unhealthy’ values?
as that’s the hand the cosmos has dealt them.
It is rational for them to run with their set of values,
despite it contradicting the wider population.

This is a dilemma.

&

Ben JS - ILP 2012 wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-b ... s/33892/35 [and the two followup responses]
-

Morality is relative to the objective. If one seeks death, food is bad. If one seeks life, food is good.

If someone disagrees with your objective, they wont share your morality. You argue how to be efficient in attaining one’s goal, but you’re not addressing why anyone should follow your objective.

Here in lies the problem, my friend.

[...]

Death is an objective to some. It is not a non-objective.

This was just an example. There’s many objectives people can have that counter objectives of others. Therefore, morality isn’t objective in and of itself, but relative to one’s objective.

[...]

I think you missed my point about goals and morality. Morality isn’t about saying what’s a right or wrong goal, it’s about discerning intentions, decisions, and actions based on how well they fit with a goal. If you say Self-Actualization is the goal, then we already know what is moral since it’s been defined in Maslow’s [hierarchy of needs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs).

==
==

[Side question nagging at me whilst making post:

If sentience is part of existence,
and beyond sentience, all is neutral:
then could the sum of all preference within existence,
be described as not being neutral?
Existence as a whole is not a conscious entity (or so I believe),
but the summary of it's contents can be biased.]

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:12 pm I agree with Hume's is-ought problem.
One can say, 'Well-being is in the interest of people' -
but ought people act towards their interests?
People can actively undermine their own interests.
From the perspective of objectivity / neutrality,
any outcome is perfectly acceptable, and there is no 'ought'.

Kant's morality is very complex and its overall theme is misunderstood by almost everyone who try to understand it.

Re Hume's is-ought, the issue is usually related to casual matter [conditional] but not the 'absolute' essence of human nature.

It is human nature and universal, all humans 'ought to breathe' or else it is pain and death.
Can people in general determine their interests in the above 'oughtness'.
If one decide to commit suicide by self-strangulation that is immoral [as defined within a human moral system].
There is a long list of 'oughtness' and 'ought-not-ness' with the human homeostatic system.
They contribute to the well-beings of humans and what is critical is to extract what is essential to morality.
It is from this that Kant relate to his Categorical Imperatives.

All the above can be justified and verified by Science. Thus Harris' point that Science can play a role in contributing inputs into the human moral system.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 am Kant's morality is very complex and its overall theme is misunderstood by almost everyone who try to understand it.

I like his categorical imperative:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Which I interpret to mean, act in a way such that you'd approve everyone else acting in the exact same way.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 am It is human nature and universal, all humans 'ought to breathe' or else it is pain and death.

Which I think could be phrased:

If one's goal entails or is survival, one ought to breath - as it is critical to this goal.
[Unless like, you're underwater or there's fatal gases around you - then you ought to hold your breath]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 amThere is a long list of 'oughtness' and 'ought-not-ness' with the human homeostatic system.

If one's goal entails the preservation of one's homeostasis.
This goal is assumed, but not necessary to all moral systems as I'll attempt to reason below.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 amThey contribute to the well-beings of humans and what is critical is to extract what is essential to morality.

Well being of humans is not critical for morality.
One could devise a morality where the well being of non-humans is critical, and human well being is irrelevant.
I don't subscribe to such a moral system, but it is internally consistent.

Again, morality is the measure by which to discern good from bad.
There are many yardsticks by which one can do this.

Or this:

Chat GPT wrote: 1. Animal Moral Systems

Many social animals exhibit behaviors that suggest proto-moral systems, often based on empathy, cooperation, fairness, and reciprocity:

Primates (e.g., chimpanzees, bonobos): Show empathy, reconciliation after conflict, and responses to fairness or cheating.

Elephants: Exhibit mourning behavior, cooperative problem-solving, and strong family bonds.

Wolves and dolphins: Have social rules and show punishment for rule-breakers.

Rats: Have been shown to free trapped companions, suggesting rudimentary empathy.

These behaviors can be seen as evolutionary precursors to morality — more biological and emotional systems than reflective, rule-based ethical codes.

---

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 amAll the above can be justified and verified by Science.

Science is a common noun, not a belief system or ideology & should not be capitalized (unless you're trying to imply something). The scientific method is an approach to testing theories / information, and science more broadly is the process of creating falsifiable hypothesis and methods by which they can be disproved, afterwhich scientists attempt to do just that - disprove theories.

Science will not tell us what is certain, it can tell us only what is false - it can however say what is highly likely to be true, bordering on certainty. Practicing science in accord with it's principles, will leave it's practitioners unable to say science declares any theory to be 100% known.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 amThus Harris' point that Science can play a role in contributing inputs into the human moral system.

If we assume a goal, then science may inform of us methods by which to reach this goal.
There is more than one moral system held by humans, and more than one moral system that applies to humans -
so 'the human moral system' is an extremely misleading phrase (has someone titled a moral system 'the human moral system'?).

===

A Non life-affirming morality:

Meet Philipp Mainländer.

Chat GPT - Philipp Mainländer [summary of philosophy] wrote: Philipp Mainländer's philosophy is one of the most radical forms of philosophical pessimism in Western thought. His central work, Die Philosophie der Erlösung (The Philosophy of Redemption), outlines a metaphysical and ethical worldview grounded in the desire for non-existence.

Here's a summary of his key philosophical views:

1. The Will and the Fall from Unity

Influenced by Schopenhauer, Mainländer accepted the idea of a “will” as the fundamental force of reality—but reversed its direction.
For Schopenhauer, the will blindly affirms life; for Mainländer, the will seeks death, aiming to return to nothingness.
He claimed that in the beginning, there was a perfect unity (God) who willed His own death, shattering into the material universe. Creation was thus a cosmic suicide.

“The history of the world is the process of the dying of God.”

2. Metaphysical Nihilism

Mainländer believed that non-being is better than being.
Existence is a painful error, and everything that lives seeks unconsciously to die, a drive he called the will to death.
Redemption lies not in salvation or eternal life, but in ceasing to exist.

3. Ethics of Self-Denial

He advocated for a moral life based on asceticism, compassion, and self-renunciation, but not for religious reasons.
The purpose of ethics is to hasten the return to nothingness—by rejecting selfish desires, reproducing less, and minimizing suffering.
His ethics parallel Buddhism and Christian asceticism, but without a supernatural element.

4. Critique of Traditional Religion

Though his system might sound spiritual, Mainländer was atheistic and anti-religious.
He rejected the idea of a benevolent God, eternal soul, or afterlife.
His idea of “God” was purely metaphysical—a symbol for the original unity that willed its own annihilation.

5. Influence and Legacy

Mainländer’s views influenced Nietzsche (particularly in his early writings), though Nietzsche later rejected his pessimism.
Also a forerunner of existential nihilism and modern critiques of meaning.
Rare in the history of philosophy, Mainländer’s personal life and suicide shortly after publishing his work were seen by some as an embodiment of his philosophy.

Summary:

Mainländer's worldview is deeply tragic, asserting that life is fundamentally a mistake, and that the highest goal is to return to non-existence. He differs from Schopenhauer by affirming that the will ultimately desires its own extinction, and that death is the true form of redemption.

Before committing suicide, he declared life a mistake and that we ought not exist. His morality states life is not good - survival, not good.
It's an internally consistent moral system, based on his interpretation of existence.

[Or google antinatalism]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:12 am If one decide to commit suicide by self-strangulation that is immoral [as defined within a human moral system].

A particular moral system may declare this act immoral, but not all.

I think there are scenarios where it's rational to commit suicide,
and unethical to declare one ought stay alive given particular circumstances.

The classic I go to is the prisoner of war.

Ben JS (2013-2014) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/new-t ... s/36331/34
-

Let’s say a person is dying of a terminal illness, and for every day they continue to live, they suffer. What value has continued physical health to them? Do you say it’s good for them to stay alive, when they’ve lived a satisfying life by their own standards, are ready to die, and want to do it with dignity without slowly enduring the breakdown of their body? What of a soldier who’s to become a prisoner of war, and be tortured to death. Is physical health good for them? Is it right that they should continue to live, with what they’re about to endure?

[...]

Soldiers who faced the prospect of being tortured to death as prisoners of war, often chose to commit suicide.
This wasn’t an act of depression. They were protecting themselves, and information regarding the army they fought for.
They considered the future, and decided death would be preferable, and if these soldiers can be rational, others can be rational too.
There are many circumstances that could motivate one to consider death as an alternative.

You can declare the above scenarios immoral,
but people don't have to agree with you.
Your assessment is subjective,
based on your own moral system.

We project morality onto an amoral universe.

In addition to OP:

It may feel like we're repeating old debates, but at least science is giving us new information.

250th anniversary next year:

Gemini AI - 'The Universal Morality' (1776) by Baron d'Holbach wrote:
Ah, Baron d'Holbach's The Universal Morality (1776) – a fascinating and rather radical work for its time! In essence, d'Holbach lays out a system of ethics grounded not in divine decree or abstract metaphysical principles, but firmly in human nature and the pursuit of happiness within the natural world.

Here's a summary of his key arguments:

Naturalism and Materialism: D'Holbach, a staunch materialist, argues that humans are purely physical beings governed by the same natural laws as everything else. There is no separate soul or supernatural realm influencing our actions. Morality, therefore, must be understood within this material reality.

• Self-Interest as the Foundation: He posits that the fundamental drive of all living beings, including humans, is self-preservation and the pursuit of well-being or happiness. This isn't necessarily selfish in a negative sense, but rather an inherent tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

• Utility as the Moral Compass: From this foundation of self-interest, d'Holbach derives his concept of utility. Actions are morally good if they tend to promote the happiness and well-being of the individual and society as a whole. Conversely, actions that lead to suffering and harm are morally wrong.

• The Importance of Reason and Experience: To determine what is truly useful and conducive to happiness, d'Holbach emphasizes the crucial role of reason and experience. Through rational reflection and observation of the consequences of actions, individuals and societies can discern moral principles.

• Social Utility and the Common Good: While rooted in individual self-interest, d'Holbach stresses that individual happiness is inextricably linked to the happiness of the community. A well-ordered society, based on just laws and mutual respect, is essential for individuals to flourish. Therefore, actions that contribute to the common good are ultimately in the best interest of each individual.

• Critique of Traditional Morality and Religion: D'Holbach critiques traditional moral systems often based on religious dogma, arguing that they are often arbitrary, irrational, and serve to oppress rather than promote genuine human flourishing. He sees them as tools of control that hinder the development of a natural and rational morality.

• Education and Legislation as Key to Moral Improvement: D'Holbach believed that morality could be cultivated through proper education that emphasizes reason and understanding of natural laws. Furthermore, just and enlightened legislation should aim to create social conditions that encourage virtuous behavior and discourage harmful actions by demonstrating their negative consequences for individual and collective well-being.

In short, The Universal Morality presents a secular, utilitarian ethical framework where morality is grounded in human nature, judged by its consequences for happiness, and discoverable through reason and experience, with a strong emphasis on the social good. It's a powerful argument for a morality based on human flourishing in this world, rather than adherence to supernatural commands.

An inclusive morality.
One where any individual can recognize the benefit of adopting.
With the fewest limitations necessary to ensure personal freedoms of all.
Such that, you can pursue your interests and others theirs, with the least impedance on one another.

Why should this morality seek to not impede on others?

Because this morality must be sold to each individual.
This morality would need to justify why it would give preferential treatment to any particular adoptee over another adoptee.

For example, a morality that particularly benefits short people - would produce resistance from than those who are tall.
This is circling back to a morality that is generalized.

This can also be said for religion or lack thereof.
A morality that allows the pursuit of religion, or non-theism, is more inclusive -
assuming either pursuit, does not negatively impact the territory of the more fundamental principle:
freedom for all to pursue their interests without causing undue expense to others.

So a morality that does not forbid or mandate religion.
One that can align with both religious and secular values -
such that adopting would not create impedance for either community.

This type of morality is more stable,
as it does not rest upon something that sews division -
influencing others not to adopt the morality, thereby posing potential risk.

What is the purpose of morality?

A primary function is it serves as providing a framework for cooperation and mutual benefit.
[but it can also be about right / wrong, which I'll get to later*]

As what is morality if one is only engaging with inanimate matter?
It's about 'good' interactions or actions, with respect to other sentient beings & self.
e.g. don't burn down the vegetation that provides shelter / sustenance.

Ben JS - ILP (2012) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what- ... es/34649/2
-

Rights (Wiki) - are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;
that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people,
according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

To me, the value of a right or it’s function, is to allow one confidence in an act without fear of negative repercussion.
If you have a right to breathe, you can breathe without someone retaliating against you.

Rights allow us to cooperate with mutual benefit. It’s a framework for equality.

By it’s design, one attributes rights to others by default.
If one didn’t do this, it would render the invention useless because it’s intent is to allow people to cooperate.
If I don’t respect your rights, you will ignore the concept all together of entitlement and fight against me, because I’ve treated you unfairly.

Ben JS - ILP (2014) wrote: From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/value ... rity/38661
-

One spectrum is that of rights. A tool that can enable co-operation between multiple parties.
The method is to respect the interests of all parties, regardless of what they are,
and devise a strategy where there is mutual benefit without anyone’s interests being undermined.

To my mind, the best foundation for healthy co-operation,
is that which distributes equal priority to the interests of all parties involved,
as opposed to a framework that helps one party, at the expense of another -
i.e. discriminates against the welfare of a certain party.

[...]

[T]o list the best means of interaction with the other,
the shoulds and should nots,
gives one more freedom to move.
How?

It enables one to act without fear of causing harm to the other,
as long as one factors in the other’s rights,
one can have confidence and thus devote less energy to doubt/worry.

Beyond this, rights ensure that anyone within the system are influenced
to treat all others within the system to a standard that the system deems acceptable.

One has family, friends, self.
If their welfare was at risk, one would devote energy to protect them.
If one has the assurance that the environment will not harm them,
one again has more energy to focus on other things.
One need not be inhibited by concern for the welfare of that which one values.

---

Morality does need to be objective to be of utility.

We may have many interests or values, that are inherent to us.
Whilst avoiding suffering, and seeking satisfaction / fulfillment are fairly general,
they may not be our only innate drives / values, and are also abstractions.
Potentially there's many metrics that we value intrinsically for their own sake,
that are values innate to the structure we were born with.

We could make arguments for how to mold these potential innate values
into the boxes of 'causes suffering' or 'produces fulfillment',
but this may be misrepresenting what's really there -
ends in themselves.
We can know why these ends in themselves are present,
but if they are an end in themselves to us, then we desire that for it's own sake.

So one may say, morality is all about producing the wellbeing of all who adopt it...

Unfortunately not.

**The Devil**

Let's say there's someone bastard out there that declares:
'All life, self included, ought suffer. Maximum suffering of all is good. The devil's utilitarianism.'

From their perspective, they decree life is awful and it is right that it's punished.
Or even less, it just feels right to 'the devil' - they condemn all.

Why is their perspective and goal, any less inherently right for them, than anyone one else's goal?

Is there something fundamental that declares life ought seek it's wellbeing?

--

The point is: values are rooted in one's own experience. (subjective)

We can have shared values, but this does not make them universal.

The above example of someone wishing suffering, could be described as extremely unhealthy (by OP definition of health) -
and would not encourage others to adopt this perspective, and very likely encourage severe resistance to this perspective.

When we recognize that morality is about guidelines / rules of thumb,
for mutually beneficial relationships / actions / interactions -
then finding / building common ground is self evidently constructive.

We don't need to adopt a morality for the exact same reasons for it to benefit us -
it only needs to be mutually rewarding, for it to express it's utility.
If it can gives us the freedom to pursue our own ideals, that's a success.